Yale’s Antisemitism Problem
YIISA was the first institution of its kind, the first university based center for research on antisemitism in North America. Isn’t this astonishing? Let’s just take the last 10 years, since the “second Intifada” in September 2000 and since the horror of 9/11. Why did no full-time professor and no university, whether Ivy League or other, whether in New York City, Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Dallas, establish a center especially and exclusively dedicated to the scholarly analysis of antisemitism, of new antisemitism, left-wing, progressive (Jewish and non-Jewish), Muslim, Arabic, right-wing extremist, mainstream media, and other forms of (anti-Zionist) antisemitism?
Finally Canadian sociologist Dr. Small, who originally specialized in urban planning before taking up the analysis of new antisemitism, came to Yale to head the new YIISA. He had the idea, the resources, and the network of scholars, donors, and Yale people who supported and embraced his idea of YIISA, among them William Prusoff and Allon Canaan.
Now YIISA is gone. And some scholars, most notably historian Deborah Lipstadt in an article titled “How to Study Antisemitism” in the Forward, are blaming YIISA instead of Yale. Her article surprised many scholars on antisemitism, as well as people in the pro-Israel tent.
While pretending to be against all forms of antisemitism, Lipstadt is apparently even more profoundly against “advocacy.” She denounces Charles Small for being an advocate, not a scholar.
British anti-Zionist Anthony Lerman, though, is happy about Deborah Lipstadt’s criticism of YIISA. He embraces her because she attacks YIISA as “advocacy.”
Why did Yale close YIISA? On September 3, 2010, the JTA reported criticisms and resentments from Arab sources about the large YIISA conference held in August 2010:
The PLO envoy to Washington said that a conference on anti-Semitism at Yale University “demonized Arabs.”
In an Aug. 30 letter to the university’s president, Richard Levin, Ma’en Areikat cited the Aug. 23-25 inaugural conference of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism. The conference was titled ‘Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity.’ Said Areikat:
As Palestinians, we strongly support principles of academic freedom and free speech, however racist propaganda masquerading as scholarship does not fall into this category.
Don Filer, the director of Yale’s Office of International Affairs, wrote back to say that Yale does not censor academics, the Yale Daily News reported.
In his letter Areikat cited three lectures and scholars out of more than 100 at a conference that included sessions not only on antisemitism in the Islamic world but among feminists, in the Christian world, and among Jews. Scholars came from 18 countries and leading educational institutions, and included pre-eminent experts in their fields — such as Deborah Lipstadt.
Areikat singled out for criticism Itamar Marcus, who directs Palestinian Media Watch. Marcus delivered a keynote lecture titled “The Central Role of Palestinian Anti-Semitism in Creating the Palestinian Identity.”
What was Lipstadt’s response in June 2011, after Yale followed the advice of the PLO to kill YIISA? It is interesting how she deals with scholarship at Yale:
According to sources at Yale, the university’s leadership unsuccessfully worked with YIISA in an attempt to rectify some of these issues. Part of Yale’s discomfort might have come from the fact that a Yale-based scholarly entity was administered by an individual who, while a successful institution builder, was not a Yale faculty member and who had no official position at the university. Yale has indicated that it is intent on axing YIISA and replacing it with an initiative that will address both anti-Semitism and its scholarly concerns.
What are the facts? Dr. Small talked to me and told me about his career. He is astonished that Lipstadt, whom he had invited to YIISA several times, did not talk to him before reporting about him.
Dr. Small’s participation in the program of the Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies and his teaching in its program in Ethics, Politics, and Economics apparently does not count for her. Dr. Small also runs programs for undergraduates and graduates, as well as a Post-Doctoral program.
I told Dr. Lipstadt about my research and she wrote that she clearly sees my “excellent” work. However, she did not respond to my inquiry as to why she attacked Charles Small and YIISA for having moved from scholarship to advocacy.
Dr. Lipstadt makes accusations of advocacy without discussing the high-profile scholarly results of YIISA. YIISA held five conferences, not including its huge conference with over 100 presentations in August 2010.
Most importantly, YIISA organized and hosted, from Fall 2005 until Spring 2011, some 118 events in its seminar series Antisemitism in Contemporary Perspective. The 118 events included 128 presentations.
I have told Lipstadt that I disagree with her piece, and have told her about the high-profile scholarship of YIISA. She responded:
At the same time, however, there was a strain of advocacy in many of the presentations and papers and this made even those who were supporters of YIISA uncomfortable. This gave fodder to YIISA’s critics and lead to Yale’s actions.
This is an interesting argument from a scholar of the Holocaust and the history of antisemitism.
She says that inappropriate activities — advocacy (for Israel) — led to “criticism,” like that from the PLO. This is a lie: the PLO promotes hatred of Israel, it is not a “critic.” The PLO cannot tolerate the scholarly analysis of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim antisemitism. The analysis of antisemitism, like that of the PLO, clearly shows that their ideology and actions do not depend on what others do or not do.
Lipstadt does not mention the above-quoted letter from the PLO, which sparked the entire debate about the YIISA conference in August 2010 at Yale.
Contrary to that, the historian does not try to portray the real climate and scholarship at YIISA. Why did Lipstadt not mention a single one of these events at YIISA? Why is she not naming who was doing the allegedly inappropriate advocacy?
As a Yale alum who lives in Israel, I appreciate the author’s attempt to sound the alarm about the closing of Yale’s Program for the Study of Antisemitism. In fact, I hope that Yale will be convinced re-open the debate (as well as the program).
But “let’s focus” (as the author himself begins one of the paragraphs at the bottom of page three). Unfortunately, this article lacks the basic editorial organization needed to make the events’ chronology — as well as their importance — clear to the average reader. Seemingly every academic and public figure who has weighed in on the closure of the Program is deemed worthy of mention. But where are the clear statements? Where is the main point?
I am not advocating over-simplification. I also understand that the author — as an “insider” who did academic research on antisemitism while he was at Yale — has a perspective that few share.
However, I believe that the Pajamas Media editorial staff rushed to post this piece without making sure that the author made his point effectively. And because this is an important topic — one that I care about deeply — I think that’s really a shame.
Being as how Yale published a book regarding the results surrounding the decision by a Danish newspaper to publish cartoon images of Mohammed & then pointedly LEFT OUT the cartoons from the book along with other, more classical, depictions of Islam’s prophet you kind of wonder what is going on there.
I wonder who is sending money to Yale these days? Do they have names like Muhammed, Hussein or Abdullah? Just asking.
I, of course, am not surprised for another reason. Yale University Press recently published a book about the 12 Danish cartoons portraying Muhammed in an unfavorable light. The Press, however, was to chicken to allow the cartoons to be printed in the book. I guess the University is too chicken to allow anyone to say anything about Arab Judeophobia.
Let me add one point and one criticism to this piece.
First, announcement that YPSA would be created – replacing YIISA – brought the kind of praise from the ADL that suggests some are prepared to welcome any scraps of support from the powers that be. The ADL itself continues to focus on “traditional” anti-Semitism from the right, not that which today comes predominantly from the Arab and Islamic world along with their leftist abettors.
Second, the reference to Judge Richard Goldstone as an “antisemite” was inappropriate. A fool and a “useful idiot”, a tool of the Human Rights Council he is, even an opportunist and arguably a collaborator with our enemies. But let’s reserve the labeling of one as an anti-Semite for those who truly merit it lest it lose all meaning.
As per your comment on the ADL, it’s time the ADL started focusing on the antisemitism of the Left.
When I was growing up, antisemitism was simply unthinkable. This was because of guilt over the Holocaust.
But antisemitism is the world’s oldest sport. I often wondered how it make its Voldemort-like return.
About 20 years ago, I was at a dinner party that included a prominent intellectual and figure in the New York cultural scene. That was the first time I heard the Palestinian issue used as a cover for antisemitic remarks.
And then it dawned on me: it would make its comeback through the Left. The well-heeled were just waiting for a pretext to reengage. Edward Said and friends were going to give it to them.
The old Jew-hatred (which in fact is envy) never really went away. All it needed was a new way to legitimatize itself in our post-Christian age.
So why are so many of my co-religionists so willfully blind to what’s going on in the Left?
The Charles Small referred to positively in this piece opposes the First Amendment. In an interview for CBC’s The National he said the US needs to have European-style laws to counter “hate speech”. In an interview he did for NPR he said: the United States of America has become the space or the place where hate groups use URLs or create websites based in the United States because they’re protected under the First Amendment. And I think this is something that policymakers really need to address.
He then said:if you take the case of Canada or the European Union, that it’s not Draconian laws where people aren’t able to speak freely or to articulate views.
I guess he’s never heard of Geert Wilders or any of the other victims of “hate speech” laws.
Of course he does not discuss the problems Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant had in Canada.
History tells us that the new social and national groups seeking power and money are often boost antisemitism that already exists in the society.For instance the “modern”. Arabic antisemitism was sponsored by nazies in Egypt.The study of native antisemitism and its interactions with “innovations” must not be forgotten.
I keep asking myself this question lately – why are we suddenly flooded with all things Islam? I have heard that we borrow 40% of the U.S. budget from China and Saudi Arabia, and this could certainly account for much of it, but what else? Obviously it is a backward, barbaric, and totalitarian ideology. Hitler joined forces with the Islamics because they were totalitarianists and Jew-haters in arms. I can believe that of Obama, but Bush seemed just as in the bag with it all. Puzzling and frightening as I can think of no other philosophy I find as repugrant.
Petro dollars buys a lot of friends and influence, no?
The history of Dead, White Antisemites? #B^1
O! the irony.
This article is badly written and edited, and should not have been published. The point could have been made in two sentences…
Namely?
It’s disheartening that Yale was virtually the only US University institute studying anti semitism. Frankly, the anti semites are wining in browbeating and. overwhelming every visible advocate for honest academic study on the subject. The intellectual evil of antisemitism and Islam is leading to war against Israel, does anyone doubt it is coming and soon. Israel must strike Iran soon, bomb every nuclear facility and lever of government. Even G-D forbid if Israel was conquered by Arabs again, antisemitism would rage unabated. Recognize that Israel may have to decimate her enemies to exist and so be it.
this program will produce major scholarship on the vitally important subject of antisemitism.